From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28CAEBC32 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2G03KJT032379 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03:20 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA29044 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from pedigree.cs.ubc.ca (pedigree.cs.ubc.ca [142.103.6.50]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2G03JZs020614 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03:19 +0100 Received: from cascade.cs.ubc.ca (cascade.cs.ubc.ca [142.103.7.7]) by pedigree.cs.ubc.ca (8.12.10/8.11.4) with ESMTP id j2G03GFX003560; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:03:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:03:16 -0800 (PST) From: Christopher Dutchyn To: "William D.Neumann" Cc: Yoann Padioleau , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml troll on Slashdot In-Reply-To: <172f01077499b3d417604d0ad31f2bdb@cs.unm.edu> Message-ID: References: <42363A86.6010309@1969.ws> <200503150859.55997.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200503152036.45894.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <32977.131.254.50.45.1110920621.squirrel@mail.irisa.fr> <172f01077499b3d417604d0ad31f2bdb@cs.unm.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 423777C8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 423777C7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 inherently:01 arrays:01 popl:01 oege:01 moor:01 wrote:01 slower:01 imperative:01 imperative:01 lisp:01 functional:02 functional:02 neumann:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, William D.Neumann wrote: > His point seems to be that programming in a "functional style"[1] is > inherently slower than an imperative style because a list or a map have > different performance characteristics than do arrays. Nick Pippinger gave the first crisp result comparing performance of functional and imperative languages in "Pure vs Impure Lisp" [POPL 1996]. Researchers like Oege de Moor are working on characterizing more of these differences. -- Christopher Dutchyn UBC Computer Science